Quaker Lane + Congress Square | Downtown

Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

^ I agree with all the buildings in that list except for the Federal Reserve. Something about the way that building just dominates that space and its uniqueness. Also the clout of it being the FED. I love that building and doesn't deserve to be lumped with One Boston, Beacon or PO Square.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

... And ... one confession: 500 Boylston is fine in my book (cringes in anticipation). I thank our lucky stars that we don't have a Kensington (or Federal Reserve Building, or One Boston Place, or First National Bank, One Financial Center, One Post Office Square, One Beacon Street ... you get the picture) in its place.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

choo said:
^ I agree with all the buildings in that list except for the Federal Reserve. Something about the way that building just dominates that space and its uniqueness. Also the clout of it being the FED. I love that building and doesn't deserve to be lumped with One Boston, Beacon or PO Square.
Click to expand...

I second this opinion. It does not have to be beautiful ... if it's badass.

cca
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Equilibria said:
Fidelity selling the site isn't the same as moving away. They may just be divesting themselves of responsibility for the site to give themselves flexibility and consolidate costs. I wouldn't be so sure that their offices won't stay on-site, just in a taller building.

For comparison, State Street doesn't own One Lincoln, even with their name on top.
Click to expand...
i don't get the comparisons to 1 Lincoln. Yes the primary tenant has a marquee on top. But john Hynes iii built the tower on spec, in a torrid economy, and hit a home run when state street decided to lease most of the building. The variables at play with 82 Devonshire couldn't be more different--other than this very nominal similarity that people have fixated on. Plus, the state street signage at 1 Lincoln is uniquely effective because the building is the southeastern most skyscraper in downtown.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

datadyne007 said:
This thread is an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...

True. But it's the Fidelity factor. They drive people crazy for whatever reason. I think many people feel they should have done more in terms of their presence here, given their size. Plenty of lesser firms sport high profile glitzy towers in other cities.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

HalcyonEra said:
True. But it's the Fidelity factor. They drive people crazy for whatever reason. I think many people feel they should have done more in terms of their presence here, given their size. Plenty of lesser firms sport high profile glitzy towers in other cities.
Click to expand...

Of course, "high profile glitzy" is absolute anathema to Ned Johnson & clan, what with their Yankee outlook/background. And when you say, "should have done more"--what, the tens of millions of dollars he plowed into the Peabody Essex Museum and similar philanthropic ventures isn't enough? Just because someone's Yankee tastes seem quaint and out-of-date doesn't mean that, objectively, they've done major things for society/community. The value of the Peabody Essex Museum to the North Shore's regional economy, and downtown Salem in particular, is simply incalculable. Plus, all the cool model ships!
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

I've always hoped that a high rise tower would be added to this building. I also hope that the center section of the McCormack Federal Building in Post Office square gets replaced by a hight rise art decooc tower.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

dirtywater said:
Fidelity considered building a tower in the 1980's but, I believe, dropped the idea on its own before there was much of a battle with Exchange Place or anyone else. Exchange Place (or some of the tenants led by Goodwin Procter) fought against 75 State Street resulting in a shorter, squatter building than what was originally proposed and what the BRA was prepared to approve.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't these same issues still be present now even if some of the players have changed? Goodwin Proctor is still there, right?
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Not even one 600 footer added to the skyline since 1986 .... unbelievable
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

HalcyonEra said:
Wouldn't these same issues still be present now even if some of the players have changed? Goodwin Proctor is still there, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, Goodwin is still there but they are moving to Fan Pier.

See: http://fanpierboston.net/2012/fan-pier-goodwin-procter/

I hope things have changed, its a great place for a slender tower as you come up Congress Street from North Station to Post Office Square.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

bblancha said:
Hey, you are welcome.

Keeping it real.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, what do you expect? The Pru and Hancock were built by rival companies whose egos were not to be outmatched. Take those two away and what we're left with is what's actually profitable to build, and that is 300-600 footers. That hasn't changed in 50 years. What has changed is that skyscrapers no longer hold the iconic power that they once did in the eyes of the public or of CEOs; and Boston has lost many of its boosterish hometown companies, which is sad but not surprising given the macroeconomic trends at work today. So again I ask, what do you expect?
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Some of you guys are raging horn-dogs for tall towers. kz1000ps sort of nailed it, but I also think the office is on a decline and I think within 50 years the office will be be nearing its end. Work from home is going to become a lot popular due to commute time and costs as well as leaps in automation and communication technologies.

Similarly Boston doesn't have the wealth of a city like NYC or Chicago to support tons of tall residential towers.

The death of the skyscraper is coming.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

meddlepal said:
Some of you guys are raging horn-dogs for tall towers. kz1000ps sort of nailed it, but I also think the office is on a decline and I think within 50 years the office will be be nearing its end. Work from home is going to become a lot popular due to commute time and costs as well as leaps in automation and communication technologies.

Similarly Boston doesn't have the wealth of a city like NYC or Chicago to support tons of tall residential towers.

The death of the skyscraper is coming.
Click to expand...

This has been a popular topic lately at work. Demand for new tall buildings is diminishing. Boston is growing smart.

I think for NYC and Chicago, it's more about style and atitude. Vancouver and Honululu are doused in residential towers but San Fran, LA, Philly, and DC aren't either just to give a few examples.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Given the economic realities of office space, the future of skyscrapers is residential. If Melbourne's skyline can be dominated by tall residential buildings, and Vancouver's "doused" with them, I don't know why Boston's can't. The reason you haven't seen this in SF or DC are NIMBYs and the height limit, respectively. Philly's still not in an economic place to support a tower boom, and LA still has a somewhat anti-urban ethos.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

^ I would lump Boston in with SF and DC in that analysis.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

I don't know about the death of the office. Maybe "the death of the office as we know it," but no matter how advanced technology gets and how easy it makes working from home, proximity will always have a huge advantage to it in time, cost, and simplicity.

Still, I agree that towers today serve fetishists more than they serve any other purpose. We need more density, but Boston has a ton more spots to infill before going up makes sense.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ I would lump Boston in with SF and DC in that analysis.
Click to expand...

I think both SF and Boston could eventually go the Melbourne route though and see supertall residential buildings within the tiny cores their NIMBYs have allotted for highrise construction, though. Melbourne is around the same size and less economically important than either, so I'm not sure why this couldn't happen.

DC is another story because it actually has height-suppressing laws (and to the extent that the suburbs don't, there's still not enough market pressure to make real towers happen).
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

people who love towers should focus on another city........ boston is a stumptropolis.
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

So why do you focus on Boston? You never answered my question earlier: WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
 
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

He expects Dubai, DUH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top